The significance of the decision could persuade other judges to agree to en banc review, whether or not they disagree with the majority, said Ronald J. Colombo, a professor at Hofstra University’s Maurice A. Deane School of Law.

“It really puts its finger on a key ambiguity in Salman and Dirks, and for that reason and because there’s a dissenting judge, and because it implicates Second Circuit precedent in Newman, I would not be surprised if en banc were granted to get to the bottom of this,” Colombo said.